You'll have to forgive me for my delayed praise for your recent Op-Ed that was published in the most venerable of institutions for liberal clarion calls, the Wall Street Journal.
I first heard about your piece through the biased, far-left puppets you had just disparaged, so like any other liberal I must have come to a hasty conclusion.
However, I decided that I better read the piece for myself and come to my own conclusions. And boy, was that the correct move.
What I found was a masterpiece.
In nine glorious paragraphs, you successfully built a convincing argument for abandoning the economic populism that is sure to doom the Democratic Party for the economic austerity that will lead to victory for all who embrace it. It makes sense. It's brilliant, even. When was the last time a Democrat was successfully elected based on these principles, other than Warren and Bill de Blasio? When was the last time anyone lost an election based on the economic austerity that you are now proposing, other than those Romney/Ryan nobody's last year?
After all, how can anybody call themselves a true Democrat while also supporting social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare?
Sure, there might be plenty of evidence out there that tells us that Social Security is not that bad; neither is Medicare. but I don't think anyone would fault you for overlooking such easily-available research. You're a think tank, after all, and it's not like there are any think tanks that support economic populism. Well, there are places like DEMOS, the Center for American Progress, and the Roosevelt Institute, but other than a few fringe supporters, they're cracker jacks compared to your prestigious organization.
And sure, your detractors may be quick to point out that the 1% you mention happen to hold 40% of the US's financial wealth, but they've been hurt by this recession too! Oh, wait. Nevermind.
And sure, Republicans across the country can now use your Op-Ed as proof to declare that the Democrat Party is calling for cutting Social Security and Medicare, but I'm sure it will all be worth it in the long run. It's not like the Third Way would throw the Democratic Party under the bus solely for the interests of its corporate backers, unless there was a perfectly valid reason.
And sure, your argument that the only reason you are even suggesting we cut Medicare and Social Security now is because we might have to cut them in a couple more decades may sound utterly defeatist and uninspired. But why should the Republican Party hold a monopoly over such nonsense?
Oh, if only you had warned us about the utter failure that awaits the Democrats who dare embrace economic populism, we could have saved ourselves the trouble of successfully electing de Blasio and Warren in the first place!
And sure, some may question how cutting Social Security is supposed to endear Democrats to the retirement age and soon-to-be retirement age groups, the only two age groups that voted for Romney over Obama in 2012. But at least you were careful enough not to throw immigration reform and Obamacare into the mix as well. Where are the words of gratitude for this gesture of goodwill?
But perhaps that is what makes your piece so brilliant. Despite being so completely out of touch with everything that is the Democratic Party, you've nevertheless found a way to focus that wrath squarely in the direction you were trying to deflect from. It almost looked effortless, almost like you didn't put any effort into it at all.
So while the majority of the criticisms of your position will focus mainly on the merits of, or lack thereof, the claims you make in your piece, I see it for what it really is:
The shot across the bow.
This opinion piece was not really directed at the Democratic grassroots who are being hoodwinked into economic populism to the peril of electoral defeat. This piece was directed at the vulnerable candidates looking for some establishment money. And if they're not willing to play ball, you'll find someone who will.
You're betting that the corporate-funded candidate will defeat the more extreme economic populist in the primaries. And we know how well that has worked for the Republican Party. Gloriously!
So finally, I've reached the end of this love letter to the Third Way, and all who they represent.
Many of you who read this may find this a clumsy analogy, but like we talk so much about the current GOP civil war, we are now facing much of the same situation within the Democratic Party. However, I'd like to take the analogy a step further.
A lot of the coverage over this branding attempt will refer to the Third Way as "Centrist" Democrats. I think a more appropriate moniker is "Secessionist" Democrats.
The American Civil War was fought between the South, an economic powerhouse derived from an unjust system of slavery it wished to perpetuate, and the North, a slightly more liberal, culturally-diverse, industrialized society.
And, whether because of the moral implications or the political implications, it fought to abolish slavery.
The Third Way is threatening to secede from the rest of the Democratic Party unless it agrees to perpetuate the economic slavery we now face; defending the profits of the corporations at the expense of our most vulnerable; the elderly, the sick, and the poor.
And just like the North, imperfect though it may be, stood firm in its double objective to abolish slavery and preserve the Union, we will fight to make sure the Democratic Party stands for, well, the same values it stood for when we first joined.
And, if I may be so bold, we already have our (symbolic) Abraham Lincoln.
So Third Way, I can't thank you enough for publishing this Op-Ed. I can't wait to see who the Secessionists are. And I can't wait to see what you will come up with next.